The biggest relief from the verdict was for Modi, whom the tribunal called the 'chief architect behind the organization and conduct of IPL-2 in South Africa'.
“The penalty has been imposed even on Shri Lalit Kumar Modi in ignorance of his position and even suspension.
The penalty imposed on Shri Lalit Kumar Modi is wholly erroneous and thus interfered,” the judgment said.
This marks the conclusion of what has been the single most significant legal matter arising from the 2009 South Africa IPL.
“The decision to move the tournament to South Africa in 2009 was taken under extraordinary circumstances when India’s general elections made it impossible to host the tournament at home.
There has been major relief for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and some of its office-bearers in the FEMA violation case of 2009, when Season 2 of the Indian Premier League (IPL) was moved out of India to South Africa. The general election in the country was the reason for the shift.
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA has either quashed the Enforcement Directorate judgment or reduced the penalty on the Board and its office-bearers – N Srinivasan, MP Pandove and Lalit Modi, the secretary, treasurer and vice-president, respectively, at that time. Modi, of course, was also then chairman of the IPL. The judgment was delivered on July 16.
The biggest relief from the verdict was for Modi, whom the tribunal called the 'chief architect behind the organization and conduct of IPL-2 in South Africa'. “It is an admitted position that the very concept of the Indian Premier League was the brainchild of the Appellant,” the tribunal said, quashing the penalty imposed on Modi.
“The penalty has been imposed even on Shri Lalit Kumar Modi in ignorance of his position and even suspension. He was not in-charge of the affairs and otherwise he has been framed in the case without any material showing his responsibility. The penalty imposed on Shri Lalit Kumar Modi is wholly erroneous and thus interfered,” the judgment said.
Modi welcomed the verdict. “The Tribunal has rejected the central premise on which the Enforcement Directorate’s case against me had been built. It held that the principal foreign remittances relating to the staging of IPL 2009 in South Africa were current account transactions, not capital account transactions, thereby overturning the foundation of the earlier findings.
“The Tribunal also found that I was neither responsible for BCCI’s statutory FEMA compliance nor vested with the financial authority alleged by the Enforcement Directorate, and it has set aside the penalties imposed on me in the principal proceedings. This marks the conclusion of what has been the single most significant legal matter arising from the 2009 South Africa IPL. For over sixteen years I have consistently maintained one simple position: I acted in good faith, in the best interests of Indian cricket and the IPL, and committed no personal wrongdoing.”
Modi reflected on the decision to move the league to South Africa. “The decision to move the tournament to South Africa in 2009 was taken under extraordinary circumstances when India’s general elections made it impossible to host the tournament at home. The successful staging of that season ensured that the IPL survived and ultimately became one of the world’s most valuable sporting properties.”
The adjudication proceedings culminated in the impugned order dated May 31, 2018. By the said order, out of the 11 show-cause notices, penalties were imposed upon the Appellant in six matters, aggregating to INR 10.65 crore. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalties in these six notices, Modi had preferred six separate appeals before the Tribunal.
There were two different sets of penalties on Srinivasan and Pandove, then BCCI secretary and treasurer. In one case, the penalty was reduced from INR 1 crore to INR 10 lakh for Srinivasan, while the INR 50 lakh penalty on Pandove was reduced to INR 5 lakh. The penalty of INR 4 crore imposed on the BCCI was reduced to INR 1 crore.
In another case, the penalty was INR 50 lakh each on Srinivasan and Pandove, and the tribunal did not interfere with it. “They were found to be in-charge and responsible to conduct business of the BCCI in the capacity of the secretary and the treasurer. We do not find any illegality in imposing the penalty on them in pursuance to the show cause notice (XIII) rather (IV) and to that extent, the impugned order is not interfered.”
The case pertains to the remittance of foreign exchange outside India without the alleged approval of the RBI. The main charge related to the transfer of foreign exchange of USD 49,862,799.42, equivalent to INR 243,45,30,781, to a person resident outside India without prior approval of the RBI. The officials of the BCCI were also charged under Section 42(1) and (2) of the Act of 1999.
